quote:If they do toss the case and not issue a broad ruling it will be much to the delight of Democrats who see this as a winning issue going forward, and much to the chagrin of the GOP (whether they admit it or not) knowing their party will be accused of intolerance (further alienating them from the majority (some polls suggest 80%) of young Americans.

You just can't be this f*cking delusional.

They just had a vote in one of the most far left states in the country -- the People's Republic of Maryland. And, in f*cking Maryland, it only got 52% of the vote.

Your fellow far, far, far, left whacko nutjobs threaten anyone who doesn't kowtow to their f*cked-in-the-head agenda. So, your terrorist butt buddies have made it so that people are fearful to express how they feel to some anonymous person conducting a survey. BUT, they have spoken LOUD AND MUTHER F*CKING CLEAR AT THE BALLOT BOOTH.

But, you go on living in FantasyF*ckingLand believing that this is a winning issue for the Dims and believing those bull shite polls.

quote:The full NInth Circuit declined to hear the case. If the SCOTUS declines to take the case, it would then unspool back to the NInth Circuit, where the verdict would stand, and gay marriage would be legal again.

Wrong. If the Supreme Court doesn't have standing then the Ninth Circus wouldn't have standing for the same reason. It would go back down to the district court and would only be precedent in that district.

quote:The 9th Circuit ruling would be thrown out because Protect Marriage, the entity which circulated the petitions and promoted the referendum vote in favor of Prop 8 and appealed the district court's ruling that threw it out, has no standing. The district court's ruling would remain because the plaintiffs who sued in district court to invalidate the law (the couples who wanted to get married) did have standing. They are directly impacted by the law. If they had lost in the lower courts and then appealed, standing would not be an issue. But since they won, the only ones who appealed were the special interest group that (maybe) does not have standing.

Since Brown and Harris who are both same sex marriage advocates decided they could thwart the will of the voters by refusing to defend Proposition 8 in the courts, the proponents of Prop 8, Protect Marriage, were forced to step in and defend the right of the voters of California to amend the California Constitution.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the SCOTUS won't throw out the case due to a lack of standing.

First, if the SCOTUS didn't want to hear the case for whatever reason I think they wouldn't have gotten the 4 votes to hear the case.

Second, if the SCOTUS throws out the case due to a lack of standing there will be an uproar in California and elsewhere because 2 politicians who don't agree with the vote of the people could overturn that vote on a BS legal technicality.

In effect, the SCOTUS will be saying that the voters who passed Prop 8 do not have the right to have someone represent their interests in a court of law.

I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge who has to tell the voters of California that they don't have the right to defend their vote in a court of law.

quote:people are fearful to express how they feel to some anonymous person conducting a survey. BUT, they have spoken LOUD AND MUTHER F*CKING CLEAR AT THE BALLOT BOOTH.

Yes. For several years, voters voted against gay marriage. In 2012, they voted for it in three different states (or maybe 4?). Voters minds are changing. Polls show it, elections are showing it, and Democrats see it. Republicans don't.

quote:First, if the SCOTUS didn't want to hear the case for whatever reason I think they wouldn't have gotten the 4 votes to hear the case.

Hearing it and then throwing it out on standing is still hearing it. Maybe they didn't want to let the 9th Circuit decision stand by simply denying writs.

quote:Second, if the SCOTUS throws out the case due to a lack of standing there will be an uproar in California and elsewhere because 2 politicians who don't agree with the vote of the people could overturn that vote on a BS legal technicality.

They aren't going to be intimidated by some hypothetical possibility of an "uproar" in California.

quote:In effect, the SCOTUS will be saying that the voters who passed Prop 8 do not have the right to have someone represent their interests in a court of law.

No, they won't. They'll be saying they DO have someone to represent their interests and they decided not to pursue this case.

quote:I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge who has to tell the voters of California that they don't have the right to defend their vote in a court of law.

Why should they have the right to defend that one and no others? Voters don't have the right to sue to enforce the votes they cast. Some voter in Florida would not have had standing to contest the 2000 presidential vote there. Only Al Gore had standing to do that. Laws get declared unconstitutional all the time. So what? It doesn't mean that anyone who voted for the law can jump in and tie up the courts with a case they're not directly involved in.

quote:Yes. For several years, voters voted against gay marriage. In 2012, they voted for it in three different states (or maybe 4?). Voters minds are changing. Polls show it, elections are showing it, and Democrats see it. Republicans don't.

It BARELY passed in three EXTREMELY liberal states. So, now their up to 9.

THIRTY have Constitutional amendments banning it.

The "58%" and "66%" polls are LIES. It doesn't have majority support. Probably NEVER will. It's all one big bullsh!t propaganda piece that Goebells would be proud of.

quote:It BARELY passed in three EXTREMELY liberal states. So, now their up to 9.

It passed though. And it's going to pass in Oregon in 2014 and it's going to pass in Michigan and possibly Ohio in 2016. Polls are indicating the majority supports in these states. And these are the same pollsters that were spot on with their polling in Minnesota, Maine, Maryland, and Washington last year. Most of these polls came within a percentage point of the actual referendum results.

Plus, gay marriage is going to be legal soon in the not too distant future in Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, and Minnesota.

quote:The "58%" and "66%" polls are LIES. It doesn't have majority support. Probably NEVER will. It's all one big bullsh!t propaganda piece that Goebells would be proud of.

quote:Your fellow far, far, far, left whacko nutjobs threaten anyone who doesn't kowtow to their f*cked-in-the-head agenda. So, your terrorist butt buddies have made it so that people are fearful to express how they feel to some anonymous person conducting a survey. BUT, they have spoken LOUD AND MUTHER F*CKING CLEAR AT THE BALLOT BOOTH.

quote:But, you go on living in FantasyF*ckingLand believing that this is a winning issue for the Dims and believing those bull shite polls.

You do realize that national polls did not show majority support for gay marriage until 2011? You do realize that polling did not show gay marriage winning at the ballot box until 2012? And it did win. FOUR for FOUR. Polling in November 2008 showed Prop 8 would pass and it did.

I can assure I know more about this issue than you ever will. You keep living in your little delusional world and keep screaming about states passing constitutional amendments TEN YEARS AGO. And I'll be laughing my arse off at you next year when gay marriage wins again, while you whine that the polls are lying.

quote:You do realize that national polls did not show majority support for gay marriage until 2011? You do realize that polling did not show gay marriage winning at the ballot box until 2012? And it did win. FOUR for FOUR. Polling in November 2008 showed Prop 8 would pass and it did.

do you believe that our rights should be defined by the will of the majority and/or public support at that moment?

quote:do you believe that our rights should be defined by the will of the majority and/or public support at that moment?

Of course not. I consider this issue to be a civil right and it should not be voted on. HOWEVER, if that's the only way (at the present moment) to reverse these constitutional amendments/statutes (which is what happened in Mines) or to affirm legislative passage/reject repeal (which is what happened in MAryland and Washington)then it has to be done. This is why Oregon will be voting to repeal in 2014 along with Ohio (in 2014 or '16) and Michigan in 2016. There will probably be more in 2016 but these are the ones being seriously considered at this moment.

Can they rule that the ninth circuit district had no business hearing the case too? negating the basis of the ninth's ruling?

I agree with Scalia on this. He kept asking ""We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

He seems to be saying there is no Constitutional outlawing of homosexual marriage nor is it unconstitutional for states to outlaw homosexual marriage. I think it is a proper question.

If people think there should be federal involvement in this they should propose a Constitutional amendment and have it voted on by the states as outlined in the Constitution.

It worked for the 19th amendment. There was the basic issue of voting and leaders at the time felt something that important required an amendment.

It is a big deal for the SCOTUS to overturn an election of the people of a State.

quote:Alito added, “On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?”

Alito seems to be saying it is a state issue.

It makes since to me that they would throw out the Prop 8 ruling of the district court and do nothing more. That leaves Prop 8 in place but says to the California "you turn it over--the fed has no say." Following the same logic they will over turn DOMA.

quote:Hearing it and then throwing it out on standing is still hearing it. Maybe they didn't want to let the 9th Circuit decision stand by simply denying writs.

If they know they are going to throw it out because of the lack of standing then they could just refuse to hear it and it would have the same legal effect without wasting the Court's time.

quote:They aren't going to be intimidated by some hypothetical possibility of an "uproar" in California.

I didn't say they would be "intimidated". It just will look anti democratic if the SCOTUS allows two politicians to overturn the will of the people by simply refusing to do their job which is to defend the will of the people in court.

quote:No, they won't. They'll be saying they DO have someone to represent their interests and they decided not to pursue this case.

If the SCOTUS rules that they have no standing then SCOTUS is ruling that the voters who passed Prop 8 do not have the right to have someone represent their position in court and defend the constitutional legality of Prop 8.

quote:Why should they have the right to defend that one and no others?

If you don't allow them the right then it will look like the SCOTUS supports the tyranny of the minority since the two politicians who opposed Prop 8 will effectively overturn the will of the voters by simply refusing to do the job that they are mandated by law to do which is to defend the will of the majority of voters of California in court.

quote:It doesn't mean that anyone who voted for the law can jump in and tie up the courts with a case they're not directly involved in.

So you are going to argue that the voters who passed Prop 8 aren't directly involved in the case.

That proves to me you support the tyranny of the minority when you are in the minority.